Jump to content

Talk:SMS Karlsruhe (1916)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 23:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    This is awkward: the primary naval component was to comprise the flagship, Moltke, tense doesn't match rest of paragraph. And tell me what type of ship Moltke was. I think you mean "insufficient number of minesweepers" insufficient minesweepers and bad weather This is also awkward: The Admiralstab ordered the naval component to return to the North Sea. perhaps a "then" in there somewhere? Break this in half and combine the first part with the previous sentence and the second part with the following sentence: Karlsruhe sank at 15:50 and was never raised for scrapping. The rights to her wreck were sold in 1962.
    Should all be fixed.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Add turbines and boilers to infobox. Link boilers. You have the wrong Staff book in the bibliography.
    All fixed.
    B. Focused:
    How can minesweepers repulse a cruiser-destroyer sized attack?
    The engagement lasted only 15 minutes and the British were hampered by poor visibility. It also seems the British didn't press the attack all that hard - one of the minesweepers was immobilized from a hit, but they didn't finish her off. That said, Staff doesn't explain why the British broke off the engagement.
    Then say that the British broke off the engagement. It would be good find out why, though. Perhaps Marder or the British official history?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to your suggestion. I don't have Marder handy, and the first edition of the official history is the only one viewable in Google Books. It is in the main OSU library - perhaps I'll have some time to check it out this week.
    Don't bother, I looked and can't even find any mention of the engagement, so Marder's your only hope.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

How is the new Staff book?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good so far. On a side note, my internet's been down since Wednesday, but should hopefully be back up today or tomorrow, so I won't be able to get to anything until then. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]